Standing Committee B

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Resolved, 
 That the order of the Committee made on 9th November, as varied by the orders made on 11th and 16th November, shall be varied so as to provide that the words ''5.30 pm on Thursday 2nd December'' shall be deleted.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 126 - Multiple licences

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 259, in clause 126, page 57, line 37, at end add—
 '(3) The provisions of this section shall not prevent the reissuing of a personal licence which authorises the performance of more than one function, which function may include requirements for remote gambling and non-remote gambling'. 
The amendment is designed to make it clear that a function can be added to a licence and the licence then reissued to reflect all the functions that have been approved. That would allow an individual to operate under an operating licence that requires a number of different functions. Under clause 64, which is headed ''Combined licence'', the commission may issue operating licences to cover more than one of the 10 types of licence, provided that they are remote or non-remote. The amendment would permit a personal licence, which would fall under the requirements of separate remote and non-remote operating licences.

Richard Caborn: The Bill clearly states that the commission cannot issue combined remote or non-remote licences. That was a deliberate policy decision designed to ensure appropriate regulation of different types of gambling. Remote and non-remote gambling require different regulation, which places different demands on the gambling commission. For example, the age-checking systems required by online bookies are very different from those that might be expected of a betting shop. The same applies to anti-money laundering procedures and the management of customer accounts. It is essential that those differences are reflected in tailored licensing conditions set out in separate licences.
There is nothing to prevent an operator from applying for a remote licence and a non-remote licence, but I maintain that qualification for one should not entitle someone to qualification for another and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: There will be, and already are, occasions when servers are used for remote gambling and onshore gambling. We have discussed equipment and no doubt that will be sorted out later. The amendment is an attempt simply to enable personal licences to reflect that mode of operation. If the Minister is adamant that there must be a separate remote, as opposed to non-remote, licence and that that is enshrined in the Bill, we shall not make much progress on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 127 and 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129 - Disqualification

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 261, in clause 129, page 58, line 26, at end add—
 '(4) Disqualification may be in respect of the carrying out of a specified function under the personal licence but shall not operate as a disqualification for all functions unless otherwise stated in an order for forfeiture under section 108 as applied by section 121.'. 
A personal licence may specify a number of functions, and disqualification may apply to a specified function that should perhaps not apply automatically to the personal licence in totality, unless otherwise specified by the disqualification order. The amendment would preserve the remainder of the licence not covered by the disqualification order.

Richard Caborn: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation of his amendment, but I must make it clear that, unfortunately, the Government cannot agree with it. It is important that disqualification should apply to all positions of trust in the gambling industry. A court will be able to make a disqualification order only if the licensee has been convicted of one of the relevant offences listed in schedule 6. In those circumstances, if the court thinks that a period of disqualification is merited, disqualification should apply to the entire licence. I do not understand why a croupier who has been convicted of theft should be able to carry on performing other functions that his licence might authorise, such as supervision of the cash cage in a casino.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to allow the courts some flexibility, but in this case it is important to protect the public by excluding people who could be a threat to the good name of the industry. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130 - Notification of operating licensee

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 296, in clause 130, page 58, line 28, at end insert
'(za) suspends a personal licence under section 111 (as applied by section 121),'. 
Clause 130 specifies that if the commission revokes a personal licence or is informed that the courts had made either a forfeiture order relating to a personal licence or a disqualification order, the commission is under a duty to notify relevant holders of the operating licence. The commission should also be required to inform relevant holders of operating licences if it suspends a personal licence. Government amendment No. 296 rectifies that omission. 
Amendment agreed to.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 262, in clause 130, page 58, line 34, leave out from beginning to second 'the' in line 38.
The amendment seeks to delete from clause 130(2) the words from the beginning of the subsection to the end of the word ''activities''. It seems to us that unless there is definite proof, the commission ought not to be making any moves against a personal licence. 
The wording as it stands starts ''If the Commission believes''. Our question is, ''Believes as a result of what?'' Is that belief based on anecdotal evidence, a tip-off or something else? We believe that there ought to be more concrete evidence before the commission starts taking action. The attempt of the amendment, which is a probing amendment to determine how much the Government think the commission needs to know before taking action, is to delete the first three lines of the subsection, so that it reads on automatically from subsection (1).

Richard Caborn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Committee can see the sense in what he said. I agree that the commission should always notify employers about staff whose personal licences have been revoked. I imagine that that is what the commission will do.
However, the words that the amendment would delete have a purpose. It is possible for someone to apply for and hold a personal licence without being employed by an operating licensee. That was made possible because we thought it a good idea for people to train and apply for a personal licence in the hope of getting a job. 
So, the words that the amendment would delete are needed to lift the burden on the commission if the personal licensee has no employer. That is the responsibility of the commission. It is not about the merits of the disqualification order but is an administrative matter. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I think I got that. If the clause is not about the merits of the case but is a matter of administration and assistance, I am happy to accept it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 131 to 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Gambling appeals tribunal

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 332, in schedule 7, page 162, line 2, at end insert
', and in the event of a tie, the president shall have the casting vote'. 
This is a simple amendment. We understand that under the current procedure tribunal decisions may be made by majority vote, but there does not seem to be any provision for procedure in the event of a tie. That is what the amendment seeks to address.

Richard Caborn: For once, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that the tribunal should not find itself in the position where a tied outcome is possible, however the amendment is unnecessary. I draw his attention to paragraph 9, which allows the tribunal to consist of a member or the president sitting with two other members, so, in general, a tie will not be possible. Paragraph 9(3)(a) also provides for a three-member tribunal to continue with two members. That could result in a tie, but paragraph (9)(3)(b) provides that, in those circumstances, the president shall have a casting vote. It deals precisely with the situation that the hon. Gentleman seeks to address, and I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful for the Minister's explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Schedule 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Appeal to tribunal

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 263, in clause 134, page 60, line 6, after 'section', insert '71, 72 or'.
The clause allows for an appeal only to an imposition of an individual condition under clause 73. However, a right of appeal should apply to every condition that can be imposed, including general conditions under clause 71 and the decision to amend or revoke a decision under clause 72, and it should include the right of appeal against a condition imposed under clause 74 by the Secretary of State. Without the amendment, there will be no right of appeal against those other conditions, which would perhaps be inequitable.

Richard Caborn: The gambling commission may impose two types of conditions on an operating licence: general conditions, under clause 71, which will apply to all operating licence holders or all operating licence holders in a particular class; and individual conditions, under clause 73, which will apply to an individual operating licence. The right of appeal exists against only the decision of the commission to impose an individual condition on an operating licence, because that condition will be specific to that operating licence holder. There is no right of appeal against the imposition, amendment or revocation of a general condition by the commission, because those conditions will apply to all operating licence holders or all operators in a specific category. Those conditions must be general in nature in order for them to apply across the board.
It is difficult to see how an appeal process could be made to work in practice when so many different interests will be involved, but that does not mean that operators have no means of redress. If anyone believed that the gambling commission had acted unreasonably or unlawfully in imposing a condition, they could have a judicial review as their means of challenging it. There is a full consultation procedure for the commission's general conditions. In light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which is now on the record. That is very helpful, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 333, in clause 134, page 60, line 24, at end add—
 '(9) Where the Commission directs that section 138(1) shall not apply, the applicant or the licensee may appeal to the Tribunal.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 264, in clause 136, page 60, line 40, at end add—
 '(3) The Secretary of State shall issue a statement following consultation with the Lord Chancellor and parties listed in section 22(5) regarding the principles under which permission to appeal from the tribunal will be granted by the tribunal or the court referred to under subsection (1).'.

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 333 applies to clause 134, and amendment No. 264 is more or less consequential to that, although it does apply to clause 136. The clause deals with appeals to the tribunal, and rights of appeal against commission decisions.
The consequences of the immediate application of a commission decision without any right of appeal could have serious, long-term implications for an operator. Such an action by the commission should be subject to the scrutiny provided by an appeal. It makes no sense to set out a lengthy series of rights for appeal against commission decisions, while giving the commission an arbitrary and final right to overrule them without further recourse to appeal.

Richard Caborn: I do not believe it is necessary to provide for a right of appeal to the gambling appeals tribunal where the commission decides that a decision or action should take immediate effect.It is intended that the commission will use the power only in exceptional circumstances, such as a situation where it determines that the immediate suspension of a licence is necessary in order to protect children or vulnerable adults from exploitation. The licence holder will still be able to challenge the commission's decision by way of judicial review through the courts. In addition, the tribunal has discretion, under paragraph 13(f) of schedule 7, to suspend the commission's decision to disapply the stay provisions, but that should be on its own initiative and not in response to an appeal on this point.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment. Its purpose was not immediately clear to us. Onward appeals to the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland are only to be permitted on points of law. Therefore, I am not clear what the Secretary of State's statement regarding onward appeals would contain. 
Where a person applies to the gambling appeals tribunal seeking leave to appeal to a higher court on a point of law, the tribunal will consider that application on its merits and will have to consider whether the grounds for the appeal indicate a real issue of law to be decided on the appeal. If the tribunal denies an onward appeal, an appellant can apply to the relevant higher court. Again, each application will be considered on its merits. Requiring the Secretary of State to issue a statement on onward appeals is unnecessary. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and on the basis of what he has put on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 135 and 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137 - Powers of Tribunal

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 265, in clause 137, page 61, line 17, at end insert
'including reference to what will constitute reasonable belief for the purposes of section 60 and other defences under the Act.'. 
This is an attempt to tease out what would constitute reasonable belief about a person's age, which would hopefully provide a defence under clause 60, and other defences available under the Act, which could be usefully incorporated into a code of practice issued by the commission, possibly under clause 23.

Richard Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment, but it is unnecessary. The tribunal is charged with hearing appeals against certain decisions of the commission. The decisions over which it has jurisdiction to hear appeals are listed in clause 134. None of those decisions contains any defence of reasonable belief, and nor are they amenable to any such defence. In addition, clause 60 provides a defence of reasonable belief against criminal charge under part 4 of the Bill, which relates to children and young persons. Although I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, the commission will have no power to assist in the interpretation of reasonable belief under clause 60; it will be a matter for the ordinary criminal courts. The defence of reasonable belief does not appear in any other clause. It is not necessary for me to require the commission to make any statement in its code of practice about interpretation and the concept of reasonable belief; nor are there any circumstances in which the tribunal might apply that concept. Reasonable belief will have to be judged in each circumstance. For example, reasonableness will vary between the betting office and the children's arcade. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 334, in clause 137, page 61, line 21, at end add—
 '(6) The appeal is a rehearing de novo.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 268, in clause 139, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
 '(2A) Rules under this section shall provide for all appeals to be a re-hearing de novo.'.
No. 338, in clause 193, page 88, line 40, at end add— 
 '(6) The appeal is a rehearing de novo.'.

Malcolm Moss: Amendments Nos. 268 and 338 are consequential. If the tribunal is to exercise its powers fully under this clause, any hearing should consider all relevant facts or material, as originally considered by the commission when making its decision. The clause sets out the tribunal's powers, including the ability to uphold or overturn all or part of the commission's decision. If, as the clause states, the tribunal is able to consider material not previously available to the commission, it goes without saying that the tribunal's deliberations should be in the form of a re-hearing of the original application. For that to be possible, it must hold a full, de novo hearing. Although that may be the intention of the clause, it is not spelt out clearly enough. The amendment seeks to replicate the provisions in the Gaming Act 1968, whereby operators can appeal to the Crown court against refusal of a gaming licence by the licensing magistrates.

Richard Caborn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendment, as its effects were not immediately clear to us.
All appeals to the gambling appeals tribunal can be based on law and fact. When a person appeals to the tribunal against a decision taken by the gambling commission, the commission will have already heard the facts of the case. The tribunal will hear those facts again and will also be able to consider any additional evidence that may not have been available to the commission. That means that there are always two opportunities for the facts to be heard. Any onward appeal from the tribunal to the High Court or the Court of Session may be permitted on a point of law only. That is standard practice. Likewise, for appeals to the magistrates court or sheriff court under clause 192, the court will hear the facts again and will be able to consider any additional evidence that may not have been available to the licensing authority. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister did not allude to the current Gaming Act, the 1968 Act, in which I understand there are provisions similar to those in the amendments. It would be helpful if the Minister were to flesh out whether the current legislation—the 1968 Act, which we have tried to replicate—is working, and, if it is, whether this clause embraces those provisions and whether our amendment is necessary.

Richard Caborn: As I understand it, the provisions that we are taking from the 1968 Act and incorporating in this Bill are operating satisfactorily. There are no lesser appeal rights in this Bill than there are in the 1968 Act, and we believe that the current provisions operate quite effectively and will cover all circumstances.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, and on the basis of what is now on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138 - Stay pending appeal

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 266, in clause 138, page 61, line 29, leave out subsection (2).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 335, in clause 138, page 61, line 30, after 'may', insert ', in exceptional circumstances'.
No. 339, in clause 194, page 89, line 4, after 'may', insert ', in exceptional circumstances,'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendment proposes to leave out subsection (2) of clause 138. The clause provides that the commission may direct that a stay pending appeal will not apply. However, there are no grounds for such a direction in the Bill. Damage could, obviously, result from a decision from which an appeal was lodged and, therefore, either specific grounds for refusal to apply the stay pending appeal should be set forth in the Bill or that power should be deleted.
Amendments Nos. 335 and 339, the latter of which is consequential in clause 194, insert the words ''in exceptional circumstances''. Any decision by the commission under clause 138 to override the right to a stay pending appeal would have serious and immediate consequences for the operator in question. If the power is not to be the subject of possible abuse, such a decision should be taken only in exceptional circumstances. The application of a stay is part of the normal remit process and should be reflected here. No action should be taken by the commission until an appeal has been heard, unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify overriding that principle. 
There may well be circumstances that do justify overruling the stay, and we do not argue against that provision. We merely argue that the commission's right to exercise that power must be balanced by the need to demonstrate the compelling reasons for doing so.

Richard Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. However, I do not think that the changes are necessary. Any decision taken by the gambling commission or a licensing authority to override the stay pending appeal provisions will be open to challenge through the courts by way of judicial review. Clear justification for overriding the provision will be required. In effect, that restricts both the gambling commission and the licensing authority to using that power in a reasonable manner. Owing to the potentially significant effects that such a decision might have on a licensee, we would consider it  reasonable to use the power only in exceptional circumstances. We therefore do not consider the amendment necessary.
Both the gambling appeals tribunal and the magistrates courts or sheriff have the power to overrule any decision removing the stay pending appeal provisions if they believe that such a decision is not appropriate. The power is provided to the tribunal in paragraph 13 of schedule 7. For the magistrates courts and sheriffs, that ability is contained in clause 194(2). It enables any overrule to be made that is deemed appropriate. 
I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled amendment No. 266. It seems odd for the commission to have the power to direct its decisions or actions to take effect before a person has had his or her appeal against that decision determined. However, there is an important reason for including that power in the Bill. There will be circumstances in which, as a matter of public interest, it will be important that the decision of the gambling commission takes immediate effect. For example, if a self-employed bookmaker is alleged to have been involved in large-scale fraud, subsection (2) will enable the gambling commission to suspend his operating licence with immediate effect. He will still be able to appeal to the gambling appeals tribunal against the decision to suspend his licence, but in the meantime, in the interests of the public, he will not be able to continue to work as a bookmaker. 
The removal of subsection (2), which the amendment proposes, would prevent the commission from taking that action. Instead, while the appeal is being heard, the bookmaker's operating licence would be considered to be valid. That could mean that he could continue to defraud his punters until the decision of the gambling commission was upheld. I hope that I have provided the hon. Gentleman with the justification that he required for the inclusion of subsection (2). On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am happy with the Minister's explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 - Rules

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 267, in clause 139, page 61, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
Subsection (3) deals with rules providing for certain situations. It allows a summary conviction to be imposed if an individual fails to comply with a specified requirement imposed by the rules. Such a failure may not be material; there are no specified time limits. The provision appears draconian and should be deleted or replaced with a power for the tribunal to  give direction or vary the provision of the rules. It is a probing amendment designed to seek justification from the Minister as to why subsection (3) is included.

Richard Caborn: Subsection (3) serves to enable actions to be taken against persons who do not comply with requirements imposed by, or in accordance with, rules relating to the tribunal. It is important that persons who, for example, fail to obey a witness summons, alter concerns or destroy evidence should be held accountable. If subsection (3) is removed, the tribunal will be powerless to act, even if the actions of one person adversely affect the outcome of an appeal of another. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: I would like to ask the Minister a question. We have just debated the maximum fine, which should not exceed level 3 on the standard scale. Will the tribunal, in assessing the level of fine, take into account the nature of the licensee, including his financial resources?

Richard Caborn: The tribunal cannot fine—it does not have the power to do so—but the regulations may specify that a particular class of person shall or shall not be treated as a party to put proceedings before the tribunal in onward appeals. It will be an offence for a person to fail to comply with the requirements, but a person found guilty of this offence will be liable to a maximum fine of £1,000. I hope that that explanation satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster: No, it does not. Notwithstanding the fact that I may have made an error about who would issue the fine, will the Minister make it clear whether the person issuing the fine will have regard to the nature of the licensee, including his financial resources? I ask because that refers to the very rules that will apply to the financial penalties imposed by the commission.

Richard Caborn: We have to follow the same rules as the commission would if it imposed a financial penalty.

Don Foster: Thank you.

Richard Caborn: We get there eventually.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 140 to 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 - Form of licence

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 226A, in clause 143, page 63, line 36, at end add
'and
(i) specify an area (being all or part of the casino premises) for the purposes of section 158(4) in relation to those casino premises (''a designated gaming area'') and identify the same upon or by reference to the plan to be included under paragraph (g) above.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 227A, in clause 158, page 71, line 29, at end add—
 '(4) Each casino premises licence shall by virtue of this subsection be subject to the mandatory conditions that the licensee— 
(a) shall not operate gaming tables or gaming machines of Categories A or B outside a designated gaming area prescribed in relation to the relevant casino premises under section 143(1)(i), 
(b) shall not permit any person other than the licensee or a person employed by the licensee to perform any function within the casino to enter a designated gaming area whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence without the production at the entrance thereto of satisfactory evidence of identity, and 
(c) shall maintain a condition of door supervision in respect of the designated gaming area at all times whilst the same is being used in reliance of the casino premises licence. 
 (5) Regulations under this section may, in particular, add or exclude gaming machines of a particular category or categories from gaming machines which are the subject of subsection (4) provided always that such regulations shall not permit gaming machines of Category A to be so excluded. 
 (6) In subsection (4) ''satisfactory evidence of identity'' means evidence which is reasonably capable of establishing (and does in fact establish to the satisfaction of the person who obtains it) the name, address and a photographic likeness of the person producing the evidence, and that such person is over the age of 18 years on each occasion that satisfactory evidence of identity is required to be produced under this Act (including the proffering on a second or subsequent occasion of entry of a card or token issued to them by the licensee of the casino premises) for the purpose of verifying the identity of such person by reference to a photographic image stored visually or electronically upon the card or token, or upon a system maintained by the licensee of the casino premises for such purpose.'.

Don Foster: After a short pause, I rise with some trepidation and concern. Having had a phenomenally successful run this morning, I am confident that I shall not have any success whatever in relation to this issue. We return yet again to the debate we had on clause 83 concerning the requirements for identity. During those deliberations, the Minister made it clear that we were to wait for further information in relation to the third European directive on money laundering, among other matters. I am merely giving him the opportunity to say something that he might have omitted during our discussion of clause 83 or that has come to light since that discussion.

Richard Caborn: My lengthy brief has been condensed to three paragraphs, which will accord with the Committee's wish that we focus on the issues this afternoon. I shall give a full explanation of the position on money laundering, and it would be helpful if I did so without being asked to give way because the position is somewhat complex.
Casinos throughout Europe are subject to a money laundering directive, which, as well as imposing requirements on a wide range of financial institutions, requires casino customers to be identified if they buy or sell chips above a value of è1,000. However, two  things are set to change. First, the Bill will remove the requirement in the Gaming Act 1968 for casinos to operate as members' clubs. It will, of course, be open to casinos to continue to operate as members' clubs if they wish, and we made that clear during an earlier debate. Some may choose to do so, but others may not, and we should not frame the Bill in the expectation that all casinos will be for members only, which is an unnecessary regulatory requirement provided that other safeguards are in place. 
The second change in prospect is that the EU is currently considering a new draft money laundering directive, which will reinforce and extend the controls in the present directive. The Treasury remains in the lead on that and has been consulting interested bodies, including law enforcement agencies, regulators and, of course, the businesses that will be affected by the new directive, including casinos. People going into such areas will have to go through identity checks, whether or not they gamble. In the Government's view, that is unnecessary for a number of reasons. First, requirements as to identification and verification of identity for the purposes of controlling money laundering can and, indeed, should be set in specific money laundering regulations made by the Treasury, which implement the requirements set out in the EU directive. We cannot yet be sure what the new directive will require, and it would not be sensible to try to anticipate it by including detailed and specific provisions in the Bill. 
Secondly, we are not persuaded that it would be right in future to require identification on entry in all cases, even though we do so now. As I have explained, the casinos of the future will not be the same as casinos now. Furthermore, the identification requirements in the new directive are likely to be more challenging than the requirements in the present directive. It would not be appropriate to go into the details of the consultations that have been taking place with industry bodies, or the discussions with other member states. 
We expect that, fairly soon, a proposal will be agreed by member states and go to the European Parliament for consideration. What I can say is that it is likely that the new directive, like the present directive, will provide a choice between mandatory identification at the point of crossing a financial threshold or identification on entry. I can also say that a number of casinos have made clear their view that, in the context of the system of gambling regulation proposed in the Bill and, in particular, the removal of compulsory casino membership schemes, it would be more appropriate to check the identity of customers at the financial threshold and not at the physical threshold of the premises or some specific area of the premises. The amendment would shut off that option by requiring identification on entry to that area of a casino that includes gaming tables and higher-value gaming machines. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for amplifying some of the points he raised during our consideration of clause 83. May I tell him gently that he has said in two different ways that he firmly believes that the third European directive will be more challenging than the second? He also said that the third directive will be likely to reinforce and extend the controls in the second. Regulation 8(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 and article 9 of the draft third EU directive make it clear that the issue of identity does not come in only when there is an exchange of funds in excess of è1,000. Regulation 8(1) says:
 ''A person who operates a casino by way of a business in the United Kingdom must obtain satisfactory evidence of identity of any person before allowing that person to use the casino's gaming facilities.'' 
That means before any use—regardless of whether there is an exchange in excess of è1,000. 
Article 9 states: 
 ''Member states shall require that all casino customers shall be identified''. 
The identity must be verified later when there is a transfer of è1,000. 
I suggest that the Minister's statement that the situation will occur only when money changes hands, is unlikely to be reflected in the third European directive. He nevertheless makes the fair point that it would be better to wait for that directive in order to ensure that it will apply to all casinos in the United Kingdom, and that it is not necessary to require such provision in the Bill. There will be a further opportunity when we have more information about the development of the third directive.

Richard Caborn: I have made two points. The money laundering directive is about much more than casinos, and the Treasury is discussing it with businesses, banks and regulators. The regulations under the second directive required identity checks on entry, but we are considering how to implement the third directive. It is under discussion with industry, but the lead Department is the Treasury, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the implementation of the third directive has much wider implications than just for casinos.

Don Foster: I am grateful for that further explanation. The Minister will be aware that there are concerns additional to those about money laundering. They lead some people, including myself, to believe that identity provision might be useful, particularly for tracking problem gamblers. For those reasons, I believe that this is an issue to which we will return, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 353

Clause 145Principles to be applied

Principles to be applied

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 359, in clause 145, page 64, line 38, leave out 'not'.
Lest the Minister draws my attention to clause 68 and the fact that we have already agreed to it and its making clear that a demand test is not required, I point out that that clause relates to the granting of an operating licence by the commission, and that in this clause we are discussing the granting of a premises licence by a licensing authority, namely a local authority. I remind the Minister that I am still waiting to receive a letter from him explaining the absence of unitary authorities in the list of those councils that are meant to be licensing authorities. He will recall that we are still trying to find out whether Bath and North East Somerset is a unitary authority or whether it will have to call itself something like a county without districts, bearing in mind there is no such county. I hope that I get an assurance from him to return to that matter. 
The amendment relates to the issuing of premises licence by a licensing authority. We will shortly debate clause 157, which gives local authorities clear powers to say no to any casinos whatsoever for three years. That is a welcome power for local authorities. 
The Minister will be aware, however, that some local authorities will not want to have to invoke clause 157, or a complete ban on all casinos, but will want an opportunity to consider, case by case, individual proposals for planning and premises licences. In doing that, they need to maximise their power to refuse the application. Many councils are aware that when they have considered casino and other planning applications in the past they have had had good reasons, as representatives of the local people, to deny the application, only to find their decision overturned on appeal to the planning inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. They are therefore conscious that their powers are not as total as they would like. 
Surely it is important to enable councils to have the maximum range of powers to assist them in deciding whether to reject an individual casino application for a premises licence. That is why it is important that we return to the demand test as one of the measures that authorities can reasonably expect to use during their deliberations on an application. The amendment, which would simply delete the word ''not'', would mean that local authorities could take into account evidence along the lines of a demand test.

Richard Caborn: I sent a letter to you, Mr. Gale, as the Chairman of the Committee, on the hon. Gentleman's point about the explanation on local authorities and their status. I do not know whether that has been passed on, but I wanted to clear that up. I have not written to the members of the Committee individually, but through your good office.

Roger Gale: Order. I am ashamed to say that I have not seen a copy of any such letter. The Clerk tells me that neither has he. If the ministerial team would be kind enough to pass a copy to the Clerk, we will make sure that it is circulated.

Richard Caborn: Sir Alan Budd recommended, and the Government accepted, that the demand test be scrapped for casinos, bingo clubs and betting shops. Budd concluded that the demand test was outdated and reflected a time when legislation was guided by a wish to restrict opportunities.
The Joint Committee also considered the issue of demand. It did not recommend that the demand test be reintroduced but emphasised that licensing authorities should have the power to prevent the proliferation of gambling premises. The Government accepted that recommendation and drafted clause 157, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, to enable authorities to resolve not to have any or any more casinos in their area—you will know, Mr. Gale, that some such casinos already operate. 
I do not believe that such a power is necessary for other gambling premises. Casino growth has been constrained far more rigidly than has any other sector of the gambling industry. Consequently, we originally anticipated greater expansion of casino premises than of other types of gambling premises. The Government have, however, further acted on concerns regarding proliferation. That is reflected in my announcement on 16 November regarding the cap on the number of regional casinos. 
I am therefore content that the regulation-making power for new casinos, combined with an authority's ability to reject any premises licence application that is inconsistent with the licensing objectives, guidance issued by the gambling commission and the authority's own licensing statement, is sufficient to prevent proliferation. Individual applications can be refused but refusal must be on the grounds of the licensing objectives.

Don Foster: I am not surprised by the Minister's response and will comment on it when I respond to the debate. I ask the Minister one question. Could a local authority, in its policy statement, make it clear that it would consider new casinos only if there was clear evidence of demand for them? Could that be incorporated in the statement?

Richard Caborn: Yes.

Don Foster: In that case, I humbly suggest that the Minister's brief is slightly redundant. He is saying on one hand that Budd recommended that the demand test should go—the scrutiny Committee did not press for it to be reinstated—and the Minister is now making it clear that in fact the demand test can, in effect, remain as part of the local authority's policy statement. It seems that I have got exactly what I want, albeit by another method, unless the Minister wants to correct me.

Richard Caborn: That is just for casinos.

Don Foster: It is just for casinos. I am talking just about casinos; I wanted that just for casinos and it is just casinos that are referred to in the clause. I am delighted that I have achieved what I wanted by a different method. The Minister has now put it firmly on the record that the demand test can be used by local authorities if they put in their statement their intention to use the demand test as a criterion in their consideration of applications. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: Order. Before we proceed, I should correct an impression that I have given. When a Minister gives an undertaking to write directly to a Member, the Minister must write to the Member and not to the Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman is always pleased to receive courtesy copies of correspondence, as, I am sure, are Committee Members, but the undertaking remains between the Minister and the Member. The Chairman cannot possibly or properly become involved in that process.

Clause 146 - Delegation to licensing committee

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 65, line 4, leave out
'established under section 6 of the Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)' 
and insert 
'as established by that authority'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 140, in page 65, line 12, leave out subsections (3) to (5).

Malcolm Moss: These are by way of probing amendments to tease out the Government's thinking. Amendment No. 139 would simply delete the reference to the Licensing Act 2003 so that the provision would refer to
''the licensing committee of the authority as established by that authority'', 
which is the one that forms the licensing committee. 
In amendment No. 140 I am seeking an explanation from the Minister as to why the delegation is organised as proposed in the Bill rather than in some other way. Licensing committees have enough on their plates with the 2003 Act and are already complaining, as the Minister well knows, about the lack of resources for those various jobs. The provision will be an extra burden on them for which they may not receive adequate resources.

Richard Caborn: The clause sets out the responsibilities of licensing authorities and licensing committees. Licensing authorities are permitted to delegate their functions in relation to premises licenses to a committee established under section 6 of the 2003 Act. Subsections (3) to (5) empower a licensing committee to sub-delegate specific functions to individual officers of the licensing authority.

Malcolm Moss: There will be serious problems in authorities such as Westminster and Camden in terms of the sheer numbers of licence applications that will have to be considered and processed when the 2003 Act comes into force.
Westminster city council has already made many representations, saying that it does not know how it will cope with the flood of applications. We are now loading yet another burden on the same committee by making it responsible for considering gambling establishments—there will be a large number of those, particularly in inner-city areas, as I have described. We are trying to seek some flexibility so that local authorities can play things internally to the best of their ability without our prescribing in the Bill exactly how they are to do it.

Richard Caborn: I accept that, which is why there have been ongoing discussions about the implementation of the 2003 Act and the Bill. Concern has been expressed about the limit on the number of licensing committee members under section 6 of the 2003 Act and the reproduction of that limit in the Bill.
In some areas licensing committees will have a large volume of cases to hear during the transitional period of the 2003 Act. However, hon. Members should remember that authorities will receive far fewer applications for gambling premises licenses and those will not be received until after that busy transitional period. The appointed day has already been named. The limit on the number of committee members in the Bill will not assist authorities dealing with the volume of licence applications during that transitional period. There is management under both the 2003 Act and the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his explanation so far. It is interesting to note that he and his officials are taking into account the concern that has been raised already. The Minister is responsible for the 2003 Act in any event; however, there are differences.
To do their job properly in relation to premises licenses, councillors on committees will have to take on board a great deal of information relating to licensing pubs and clubs, and to make the right decisions they will, separately, have to take on board quite a lot of the  Bill's contents. That is a considerable overload and, if we are not careful, the two periods may overlap in such a way that the service provided to businesses, which need quick, appropriate decisions, will prove logistically difficult to deliver.

Richard Caborn: Although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says—he and I know that there have been concerns about the volume of cases to be considered under the 2003 Act—we must keep such things in proportion. That new regime will be considerable, there is no doubt about that, but we are talking about a much smaller number of licensing cases under the Bill. There is also a power to delegate certain functions to officers of a licensing authority to relieve the committee of the burden of sitting every time a premises licence application is received.
Against that background of considerable delegation to officers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment, because we have adequately covered the needs of local authorities.

Malcolm Moss: Yes, I am pleased that the Minister is aware of some of the problems and I agree with him entirely that those are not universal. As I said, the key areas of concern are inner-city areas, such as Westminster and Camden, with huge numbers of pubs and clubs that will have to go through the licensing process under the 2003 Act. Those places will also have the majority of betting, gambling and gaming centres. We are imposing a double load on a small number of key areas—I agree with the Minister on that—and that needs to be thought through carefully. I am grateful to him for his explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 148 - Responsible authorities

Amendment made: No. 160, in clause 148, page 66, line 23, after 'authority', insert 'in England and Wales'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Clause 148, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 149 - Interested party

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 330, in page 67, line 19, at end add
', or 
(d) has concern about or responsibility for addressing social wellbeing in the wider local or regional community from which the authorised activities may draw custom.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 331, in clause 327, page 144, line 3, at end insert 
', and 
(e) representatives of relevant social agencies with concern about or responsibility for social well-being in the wider local or regional community from which the authorised activities may draw custom, such as social services, probation service, addiction treatment bodies, primary care trusts, community workers and faith groups, regardless of whether the geographical area or remit of these agencies extends beyond that of the licensing authority.'.

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 330 would add to clause 149. Amendment No. 331, which is consequential to amendment No. 330, is similar but refers to clause 327. We return to the discussion that we had at the very beginning of the Committee's deliberations on social responsibility and well-being, as well as the input of local communities, particularly those sections of it that have great concerns about problem gambling and the social impact of gambling, betting and gaming.
The amendments are partly an attempt to help the Government. It seems, although we have not yet had the debate, that if the Government are moving down the road of limitations—and they have talked about limitations on regional casinos—there has to be a good reason to justify that in our courts, in the European Court of Human Rights and in the European Court of Justice. The amendments are an attempt to focus on the social well-being and responsibility aspects of what we are doing, and to put them in the Bill. It might be helpful for the Government if they embraced the idea; it might help them in forthcoming discussions.

Richard Caborn: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is an admirable intention behind the amendments. However, one of the three licensing objectives is to ensure that children and young people are protected from being harmed or exploited by gambling, and so I do not believe that the amendments are necessary.
To take amendment No. 331 first, clause 327 already requires a local authority to consult those who should be consulted about the licensing policy statement. Subsection 3(d) requires an authority to consult any persons 
''who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the authority's functions'' 
or their representatives. I have every confidence that authorities will consult persons who have an interest in the social well-being of the wider community. It is left open in the Bill who the authorities will be required to consult, so that each authority can consult those persons most likely to be able to make a contribution to the licensing policy.Subsection (3)(d) is not limited to persons in the licensing authority area. 
On amendment No. 330, the licensing policy would be applied every time that an authority considered an application. Therefore, where appropriate, persons with responsibility for addressing social well-being will already have been given a chance to express their views. Clause 149 also allows any person who is sufficiently close to the premises and who is likely to be affected by them to make representations. It will be down to local authorities to determine what ''sufficiently close'' means. We think that that will give adequate protection where it is needed.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of where he feels the sentiment behind the amendment can be properly deployed elsewhere in the Bill. I take on board his comments about clause 327, and the assurances he has given that consultation will be as wide as possible with the local communities and those who encouraged us to table the amendment, particularly the Churches. Those who have taken a position against gambling for obvious reasons will take some comfort from the Minister's words that according to the Bill as drafted they should be consulted on such matters. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: I would call Mr. Hawkins to move amendment No. 35, but he is not here.

Don Foster: I would like to speak to amendment No. 2 that stands in my name.

Roger Gale: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to move his own amendment, but technically, he is moving the lead amendment No. 35.

Clause 150 - Making of application

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 150, page 67, line 29, leave out from 'sought' to end of line 32.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 42, in clause 154, page 69, line 23, leave out subsection (2). 
No. 2, in clause 154, page 69, line 24, after '150(3)(b)', insert 
'unless substantial benefits of regeneration to the region will result from the proposed regional casino and'.

Don Foster: I looked at the other amendments in this group, and although I am technically moving the lead amendment, I shall not support it if a Division is called, because I can already predict the Minister's response. However, the group of amendments contains amendment No. 2, which is in my name.
One of the things that I find slightly surprising about debate on the Bill is that great mention is made throughout by the Government of the huge regenerative benefits that will flow from the deregulation measures relating to gambling. Before we heard of the proposals to cap the number of regional  casinos, we heard talk of 80,000 jobs and millions of pounds generated for the economy. Others were sceptical about whether that would happen; many have seen the Henley centre report, which pours a great deal of cold water on some of the Government's predictions. It is interesting that even the explanatory notes point out that, although there might be financial benefits on the one hand, there might be some losses on the other. There is clearly much debate and doubt surrounding the issue. 
Amendment No. 2 would ensure that nothing would go ahead unless clear, demonstrable evidence could be provided of the regenerative benefits that will accrue. It is a simple amendment that would add a requirement for clear evidence of regenerative benefits if something is to happen. One would hope that that evidence would be independently audited and not just provided by the potential casino operator. 
I am particularly conscious that we are in difficulty, because the Government intend to table major amendments on regional casinos, and they have said that they will consider measures to restrict the proliferation of large and small casinos—although we do not yet have the details of that. The Minister may be able to assure me that it will be appropriate when considering the details of the Government's amendments to refer to the regeneration benefits. Were he to do so, I would be more than happy to withdraw my amendment.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I will explain the procedure so that everyone is clear about what we are doing. Technically, the hon. Gentleman has moved amendment No. 35. He has spoken to his own amendment, amendment No.2. If he chooses to move that amendment, the decision on it will be made at the appropriate place in the Bill—fairly shortly, because it relates to clause 154, not clause 150. Technically, therefore, he has moved—whether he wished to or not—amendment No. 35.

Richard Caborn: In light of that, I will put on record the Government's response to all three amendments. May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that when we return with further amendments on proliferation and with more information to hand, there will be opportunities to discuss regeneration?
Clause 150 refers to making an application to a licensing authority for a premises licence. Amendment No. 35 relates to subsection (3). Subsection (3)(a) provides that a person who has been issued with an operating licence by the gambling commission may apply for a premises licence. Subsection (3)(b) enables a person who has applied to the commission for an operating licence, but has not yet had the application determined, to apply for a premises licence. The intention behind subsection (3)(b) is to reduce the amount of time between operating and premises licences being granted. Where an application is made under subsection (3)(b), the premises licence will not be issued to the applicant until an operating licence has been granted by the gambling commission. 
Amendment No. 42 would allow people who had not been approved by the gambling commission to be granted a premises licence. The Bill allows people who have made an application for an operating licence also to make applications for a premises licence before the operating licence is granted, but it is important that the gambling commission approves the operating licence before the premises licence is granted. Only the commission can check that the operator is suitable, competent and that his operation is crime-free and competent. The Bill gives the commission extensive powers to do that job, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to weaken that process. 
Amendment No. 2 would put a requirement on an applicant for a regional casino premises licence to demonstrate that substantial regeneration benefits will result from his proposals. The Government cannot agree to that amendment for four reasons. First, it would confuse planning and regulation. It is for the planning system to control where regional casinos should be strategically located. Regional planning and local authorities will take account of regeneration benefits when drawing up their plans and considering individual permissions. 
Secondly, decisions on gambling premises licences should be made under clause 1 licensing objectives, to ensure effective regulation. We do not want to confuse regeneration with public protection in this Bill. We deliver protection; the planning process delivers regeneration. Thirdly, it is difficult to imagine how substantial regeneration benefits could be defined, or who would do it, other than under the planning system. The amendment is bound to lead to recourse to the courts in most if not all cases.

Julie Kirkbride: The Minister makes a case that the amendment cannot be accepted because casinos will be located on the basis of the planning process, but I wonder whether that can truly be the case given that under the Government's proposals there will be only eight casinos. If Scotland or Wales gets one of them, there will not be enough casinos for each region. A higher authority will have to decide where the casinos go, because if not all regions can have one, who will decide who does not get one? How does that fit with what the Minister says?

Richard Caborn: As I said to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), when we return to flesh out the statement that I made to the Committee on 16 November about the limiting of regional casinos, that will be the appropriate time to debate the question of regeneration, because we will be returning with the methodology on which the location of those casinos will be decided.
At that stage, it will be a little clearer how the planning process and regeneration will be involved. It is difficult to give precise detail at this stage, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be ample opportunity to debate regeneration at that point. The methodology will become clearer when we return with those amendments.

John Pugh: The Minister seems to be saying that there is serious technical difficulty in defining ''substantial benefits of regeneration''. At some point, planning bodies will have to reject proposals because they lack any evidence of substantial benefits of regeneration. There will then be an appeals process, and an inspector will have to decide whether the reason for planning acceptance or rejection is a good one. The Minister is on the record as saying that that is a totally indeterminable factor. Does that not leave planning authorities in a weak position?

Richard Caborn: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I just said. We are, to some extent, discussing the issue in a vacuum. I accept that that is unfortunate, but because of the Second Reading debate and the Government's reflection on that debate and on public concern, we came back. I made a statement, and that statement had consequences that we are still working through with counsel, and we will have to bring considered amendments to Committee and to Parliament. It will be more appropriate to discuss the issue at that time. At the moment, as I said, we are discussing it in something of a vacuum, and I do not think that that takes the Committee any further forward.
There will be ample opportunity to scrutinise and challenge the procedure for regeneration in light of our having given licences for regional casinos. If the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw the amendment, we will have a useful debate later.

Don Foster: The Minister has given a devastating response to amendments Nos. 35 and 42, which I moved in the absence of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Since I moved the amendments, I can say that, in a second, I will seek leave to withdraw them.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leaping in to assist us in moving the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. The purpose of amendment No. 42, which would delete subsection (2), is to try to tease out what would happen if a premise straddled the boundary between two local authorities. The subsection enables the license applicant to decide to which local authority he makes his application. If the premise straddled a boundary, on one side of which was a heavily built-up area that did not want a successful premises application, but on the other side of which there was not a built-up area, that premise might be built against the wishes of the majority of people in the vicinity. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the problems with the subsection as worded?

Don Foster: Having said that the Minister provided a devastating response, I am beginning to reflect that perhaps it was not quite as devastating as it might have been. No doubt if the Minister has an equally devastating response to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who has at last woken up to the fact that the amendment was tabled by one of his colleagues, I am sure that he will intervene. If not, there will be an opportunity to pick up the issue at a later stage. I suspect that he may be about to intervene any second now, though not quite yet, apparently.
I will continue responding to the Minister's response to the second amendment. The Minister implied that I was confused about planning applications on the one hand and premises licenses on the other and that I was saying that regenerative benefits should be dealt with only in relation to planning applications. There is nothing wrong with stating in the Bill that a premises licence will not be given unless there is clear demonstration of substantial regenerative benefits. That is what I was proposing, and I was clear about that. I was not confused, and I still believe that my proposals should be part of the way forward, not least because, under the section 106 agreements that exist regarding planning, it is not permissible to obtain excessive benefits. That is clear in planning legislation. Currently, we cannot get large-scale regenerative benefits under planning legislation, which is why it is necessary to find some other mechanism to do that. The Minister said that there would be ''ample opportunity'' to debate that at a later stage. As much of this matter will have to be debated on Report, I hope that that was a clear indication that he will look kindly on the proposals that will no doubt come soon, and that we should have an extended opportunity to debate them on Report, possibly taking two days rather than the traditional one. 
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) was absolutely right. The Minister was telling the Committee that it would be impossible to use phrases such as ''substantial benefits of regeneration'' because we would be in court all the time. I entirely accept that we are discussing these issues—casinos and where they might be—in a vacuum, but that does not alter the fact that we are going to have to use language of that sort, and it is extremely unhelpful for him to say that it will lead to all sorts of problems in the courts. I remind him of our discussion a couple of hours ago about what constitutes ''reasonable'', in which he said, ''Well, reasonable is reasonable; the courts will decide.'' In exactly the same way, if there were a judicial review of this nature, the courts would be perfectly capable of deciding what was or was not reasonable. 
I assure the Minister that I was not confused. It would have been better if he had not made the passing comment that he did; at a later date, he may want to strike it off the record in some way. I note that he is beginning to understand the brief, and that he may wish to intervene regarding the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

Richard Caborn: Following that long explanation of very little, I will try to answer the two questions raised. In our statement of 16 November, we said that we would come back to this matter. I acknowledge what one could call the limitations of section 106, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that three licences are required: one from the gambling commission, which is about social responsibility—the primary reason for what we have done and why we have done it—the requirement for planning permission, and a premises licence.
All Committee members acknowledge that we want the maximum by-product of regeneration out of the legislation. We are carefully considering how that can be done within the limitations of all sorts of licensing conditions, whether in relation to the gambling commission, a premises licence or a planning licence under section 106. I hope that we will come back with a comprehensive approach to that, which will answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. That will be difficult because we are discussing those issues in a vacuum, but I assure him that we will return with a comprehensive approach, on which there will no doubt be substantial debate. 
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made a point about the straddle—the situation when a casino is in two areas, one of which has passed the restrictions under section 157. In that case, the applicants could apply to one authority that would license the casino, and the other could make representations. That is how that will be worked out. There will be mechanisms by which to make those types of representations, which should resolve the problem of straddling.

Don Foster: The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire looked totally blank during the Minister's answer, but I am sure that he was grateful for it, as I am grateful for the Minister's further comments. It is bizarre that the Minister began his earlier comments by telling me that I was confused between planning and premises but has just told us, in his latest rejoinder, that the premises licence may be one of the vehicles by which we will attach conditions in relation to regeneration. He now accepts that the mechanism that I proposed is a potential way forward; we shall find out at a later date what he proposes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 150 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 151 to 156 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 157 - Resolution not to issue casino licences

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 198, in clause 157, page 70, line 35, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 199, in clause 157, page 70, line 39, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'. 
No. 201, in clause 157, page 71, line 4, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'. 
No. 203, in clause 157, page 71, line 9, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'. 
No. 204, in clause 157, page 71, line 11, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'. 
No. 205, in clause 157, page 71, line 13, leave out 'casino' and insert 'gambling'.

Don Foster: The amendments would all have the same effect. They relate to the proposal that local authorities should have the power, if they so wish, of a complete veto for up to three years on any new casinos in their area. I welcome the fact that the clause covers those issues. It is important that local councils should have such powers. However, the Local Government Association has, rightly, pointed out to me and, no doubt, to other members of the Committee that its members have to deal with many other forms of gambling. That includes, for example, betting shops. The LGA goes further and says that the Bill is in part about future-proofing. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that it has been a long time since any substantial gambling legislation was before the House, and once the Bill is enacted it will likely be a long time before there is any more. Therefore the Bill must be about future-proofing.
The LGA argues on behalf of its members that it would make much more sense to have this three-year moratorium clause in respect not only of casinos but of all gambling premises. It would be up to a local authority to determine whether to invoke such a provision, but it would make a great deal of sense.

Richard Caborn: I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendments, but they are not necessary to achieve his objectives. Most gambling premises already have their place on the high street—for example, betting offices, bingo clubs and machine arcades. Those establishments have not been restricted from applying for licences to operate in premises throughout Great Britain. Instead, the regulatory systems under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and the Gaming Act 1968 have controlled the location of those gambling premises through licensing and permits. The Bill is designed to continue that practice through appropriate licensing by local authorities and licensing boards. With the addition of planning laws, we are confident that gambling premises will be controlled satisfactorily by the licensing provisions in the Bill.
Casinos, however, have been treated differently from other gambling premises over the past 40 years. They have been restricted to 53 permitted areas and have had a number of limitations placed on them, which has restricted their development. Since the expansion of the casino industry is a new departure for Great Britain, and having taken account of the concerns expressed in the scrutiny Committee process, we concluded that it would be prudent to include the  resolution-making power in clause 157. That will give licensing authorities an additional tool to control casino development in their area.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but will he explain what would be lost by agreeing to the amendment? He is saying that local councils have powers over other forms of gambling establishments, and he is absolutely right. Even without clause 157, they would have similar powers in respect of casinos. What would be lost if the amendment were accepted? I entirely accept everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I fail to understand why he does not agree that the amendment would be an additional power for local authorities.

Richard Caborn: I do not believe that anything would be gained by accepting the amendment. Local authorities have the powers to deal with such matters now. The powers that we have given to local authorities under the clause in response to the scrutiny Committee and others are all the powers that they want.

Don Foster: I hate to correct the Minister, but he is factually wrong. There is a huge difference between that and a local authority having the power of veto over a new casino that is not subsequently challengeable. There is no appeal mechanism; there is no chance that the local authority will lose out. If it decides to take such action, the local authority alone will make the decision. As for other gambling establishments, it is certainly true that they have the power to say no, but the decision of a local council can be—and often is—overturned on appeal to a higher authority. Including all gambling establishments within the three-year veto gives additional powers to local authorities. I hope that the Minister understands that.

Richard Caborn: The further explanation that I have received from my officials says that such matters cover licensing objectives only, with the exceptional case of casinos when demand is relevant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
Since the expansion of the casino is a new departure in Great Britain and, having taken account of concerns that were expressed by the scrutiny Committee, we concluded that it would be prudent to include the resolution-making power under clause 157, which is very powerful for local government. The fact that we have included that power for casinos does not mean that it is appropriate to include it for all gambling premises—far from it. 
The licensing process under part 8 of the Bill is robust and already includes a process of allowing people affected by the development to object to it. Each authority must have regard to its licensing objectives, commission guidance and codes of practice when making its decision. On that basis, I believe that we have given powers to local authorities to be able to  deal not only with casinos, but other gambling establishments. It is flexible enough meet their demands.

Don Foster: I am completely unconvinced by the Minister's argument. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in clause 157, page 71, line 16, at end add
''and consulted upon in accordance with section 327.''. 
This is a simple amendment. Under the amendment, any resolution under subsection (1) relating to casino licences shall be published by being included in a statement or revision under section 327 and consulted on. In other words, we want the Bill to show that proper consultation has taken place before a resolution is made about whether a licensing authority resolves not to issue a casino premises licence.

Richard Caborn: The amendment has considerable merit and we want to ensure that people have a role in determining whether casinos should be sited in particular areas. Indeed, there are already various mechanisms under the Bill for giving local people a voice. However, I agree that more can be done under clause 157 about public consultation on resolutions concerning casino licences. I wish to take a little more time to decide the best mechanism of achieving that. Clearly, we have the option of drawing on the spirit of the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to withdraw it, I shall give the proposal further consideration.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful to the Minister for offering to consider the matter. I ask him to send a postcard not to Mrs. Foster on this occasion, but to Mrs. Moss. We shall wait to see what happens on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: May I use this opportunity to suggest to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that if he is sending a postcard, perhaps Mrs. Foster can have a certified copy?
Unless I have missed it and it is somewhere else in the Bill, there is no requirement on a local authority to consult before it resolves not to issue a casino premises licence as set out in clause 157. Will the Minister comment on that issue of consultation? 
Has the Minister had appropriate legal advice on subsection (2)? Is it possible for a licensing authority, in making a decision to adopt a three-year exclusion principle, to have regard for any principle or matter? My concern is that it would presumably be possible for a local authority to use a totally spurious argument for not issuing a licence—for example, all the people discussing casino issues have red hair and the local  authority does not like red-haired people, or something ludicrous and silly like that. Such a local authority would be covered against judicial review because of the wording of the clause. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments, as that point has been raised by an eminent lawyer.

Richard Caborn: When the hon. Gentleman is writing to Mrs. Foster, will he put in a postscript: ''I will listen to the debates''? Had he been listening, he would have heard the response that I gave to amendment No. 141. That answered his first question on clause 157. In future, he should listen to the whole of the debate and not just to the debate around his own amendments. However, that is a matter for him. I am sure that Mrs. Foster will be pleased to note that he will take such consideration. Yes, there is complete discretion under subsection (2), but that cannot be irrational. So the red-haired people would be able to make representations, because the local authority would not be acting rationally.

Don Foster: I am most grateful to the Minister for the first answer and I shall be more than happy to rescind one of the postcards as punishment for my failure to listen. There is concern in the Local Government Association about the potential costs of all those consultations, and I hope that such costs will be borne in mind in future local government settlements.
I am grateful that the Minister put his legal argument on the record, but I say to him—and, through him, to anyone else who may be listening—that a very eminent lawyer of his acquaintance and mine questions whether his answer is satisfactory. He believes that the issue would open up a charter for lawyers and that a great deal of money might be made. The Minister assures me that that will not be the case; the eminent person to whom I refer will not be happy, but the rest of us might well be.

Richard Caborn: That eminent lawyer made that comment from a sedentary position. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now.

Don Foster: I hope that the Minister is right because one does not want to see vast sums of money wasted. I am grateful to him for his comments.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 158 - Mandatory conditions

Julie Kirkbride: I beg to move amendment No. 345, in clause 158, page 71, line 21, at end insert—
 '(1A) Regulations under this section shall include a prohibition on any authority which issues a premises licence from holding an interest directly or indirectly in a business of the licensee.'. 
The amendment is designed to explore the Minister's thinking on a key issue that has not been much raised in the Committee: the kind of benefit that local authorities might receive for giving permission for a regional casino to proceed. The issue will come up  again and there will be more to say on it; we heard what the Minister said about how the Government would decide the rationale for distributing the eight regional casinos. However, in the meantime it would be interesting to hear the Government's thinking on the permissible benefit for the granting of permission for a regional casino. 
When we had a free-for-all among large and regional casinos, many people were concerned that local authorities would simply be bribed into accepting a casino in their area, because of the enormous benefit that could be accruable to that local authority. Irrespective of what the Chancellor said today in his pre-Budget report, I suspect that pressure on council tax will still be very great for the foreseeable future.

Mark Prisk: It is going up by £100.

Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend mentions £100, which is very interesting. We were not present at the debate concerning that, but we will watch the speculation with interest.
Nevertheless, some of the regional casinos would be in a position to offer great financial benefit to the local authority, and therefore to local council tax payers. That must be enormously attractive to local councillors, who are always under pressure about council tax increases and service provision in general. 
I want it on the record that there is clearly a balance to be struck in terms of local people benefiting from the location of a regional casino. However, how will that benefit be decided, and who will be doing the deciding? If it is to be the local authorities and we, in some shape or form, reach a free-for-all and a bidding process, there will be a huge incentive for a casino to be located in an area that is less desirable, simply because the planning authority—the local authority—will want to cash in on the deal. 
That is not necessarily what the UK as a whole would like. It will want the casinos to be located in what I would call more marginal areas of interest to the casino industry. We want local people to benefit, but I would prefer that benefit to be enacted and exacted by central Government, rather than be a potential bribe to local councillors to agitate very hard for the casino to be located in their area. 
The amendment is an exploratory one and I would not want it to be included in the Bill at the moment, because I would not want local communities not to benefit from a casino. There is clearly a quid pro quo; there have been some interesting ones in the States. Equally, there is the danger that there will be an auction in which casinos are located in undesirable areas simply because the money on the table was too attractive for local councillors to turn down.

Richard Caborn: I hear what the hon. Lady says. I am sure that she appreciates that once we were forced to intervene into the marketplace, as we were by demand on Second Reading—concerns were expressed—the whole rationale for the location of casinos altered. That is what we are now working through. I assume  that there will be time to debate this, but that will be against the background of our considered amendments.
I take on board the point that the hon. Lady makes. It involves some of the issues that we are currently working through to ensure that we come back with amendments that will start answering some of her questions. Once there had been intervention in the marketplace, the equation became a different one. She rightly points out some of the potential pitfalls as well as some of the opportunities. I hope that, when we return with our considered amendments, she will be able to support them. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Julie Kirkbride: It is a shame that we cannot hear a little more of the Government's thinking on those matters. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 158 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 159 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 160 - Conditions imposed or excluded by licensing authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 14—Conditions imposed or excluded by licensing authority—
 'A premises licence may not be subject to a condition (whether imposed by virtue of section 158, 159 or 160) which— 
(a) limits or is different in a material way to the terms of any relevant operating licence held by the applicant, or 
(b) has the effect that the facilities for gambling to be used on the premises will be used in a different way either— 
(i) to the facilities authorised by the terms of any relevant operating licence held by the applicant, or 
(ii) to the way specified in any Code of Practice issued under section 23.'.

Malcolm Moss: The new clause seeks to clarify the hierarchy that will operate in the licensing system. We assume that the operating licence, which is issued by the authority responsible for the scrutiny and regulation of gambling—the gambling commission—is at the top of the pyramid. The gambling commission will ensure that all those involved in organising and running gambling premises meet high standards and are subject to regular and effective scrutiny.
We believe that the Bill reflects that hierarchy because it states that a premises licence application can be determined by a local authority only once an operating licence has been granted. It follows, therefore, that a premises licence should not be allowed to impose any conditions that override or supersede the terms of the operating licence. Perhaps that is already implicit, and no doubt when the Minister responds he will say that the concerns and  fears that have been expressed are already covered elsewhere, but it would be helpful to have that reassurance. 
It is important to be clear that there is a hierarchy of importance, and we seek to include it in the Bill through this new clause. It would ensure that an authority could not include in a premises licence anything that would vary the terms of an operating licence in a way different from that set out in the code of practice. Without the new clause the Bill could create a mechanism for premises licenses to be refused by the back door, in that the conditions imposed would make operation impossible. The legal equivalent of that would be, for example, the Crown court making a judgment to overrule the High Court, which is nonsense. 
Operators need to be sure that with the transfer of responsibilities to local authorities the relationship between the various levels of regulation works smoothly and transparently. Although we would not apply the words ''mischievous'' or ''vexatious'' to the actions of any council, they might be interpreted as such by some operators if they found it difficult to get a premises licence having undergone the rigorous scrutiny of the gambling commission to get an operator's licence. 
The new clause is an attempt to tease out from the Minister whether those concerns are covered; if they are not, perhaps he will take them on board.

Richard Caborn: The Bill is intended to create separate systems for operating licences and premises licences, with the licensing objectives and the commission guidance feeding into the system for both licences.
The operating licence deals with the applicant and the gambling activity, and the premises licence deals with the premises on which that gambling takes place. A licensing authority would not, therefore, be able to interfere and impose conditions on operating licences, as it would be operating illegally if it tried to do so. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point about the ability of a licensing authority to interfere with the conditions attached to the operating licence. We do not intend that the licensing authority should be able to impose conditions that would interfere in any way with the conditions of the operating licence. We will, therefore, consider whether any amendment is necessary to put that matter beyond doubt. To that extent we agree to consider paragraphs (a) and (b)(i) of the new clause. 
However, we do not think that paragraph (b)(ii) is a necessary addition to the Bill, because under clause 145 the licensing authorities must aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as the authority thinks it is 
''in accordance with'', 
among other things, 
''the code of practice issued under clause 23.'' 
The licensing authority is already required to consider the code of practice under clause 23. Any decision to impose conditions in contravention of that code is  likely to be amenable to judicial review. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause.

Malcolm Moss: I feel that another postcard may be winging its way through the air, in which case the score today is three to Mrs. Foster, and Mrs. Moss catching up with two this afternoon.
I am grateful for the Minister's remarks, for his putting on the record that we raised an important issue and for his saying that he will scrutinise the Bill to ensure that, to use his words, the issue is put beyond doubt and that licensing authorities—local authorities—will not have the opportunity to overturn an operator's licence, which would, in effect, be a green light from the gambling commission. We look forward to hearing about that on Report or after that. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 160 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 161 and 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 163 - Gaming machines

Julie Kirkbride: I beg to move amendment No. 343, in page 73, line 8, at end insert
'and 
(c) not more than 10 per cent. of the number of actual machines sited, or not more than 1,250 machines, shall be Category A machines.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 271, in page 73, line 13, after 'Category', insert 'A,'.
No. 272, in page 73, line 21, after 'Category', insert 'A,'. 
No. 273, in page 74, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(10) The provisions of this section are subject to section 220(2)(c).'. 
No. 6, in clause 220, page 101, line 41, leave out from 'defining' to end of line 43 and insert 
'three classes of gaming machine for the purposes of this Act all of which shall be subject to maximum stakes and prizes.'. 
No. 270, in clause 220, page 102, line 3, at end insert 
 ', and 
(c) only allow a maximum of one-fifth of the number of gaming machines which are permitted to be installed to be Category A machines and subject always to subsection (4).'. 
No. 7, in clause 220, page 102, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert— 
 '(4) Every three years the Secretary of State shall review any regulations made in respect of Category B to D gaming machines, and which make provision in respect of—'. 
No. 274, in clause 220, page 102, line 6, leave out subsection (4) and insert— 
 '(4) Subject to section 228 of this Act, every third year after the coming into force of Part 10 of this Act the Secretary of State shall, after receiving from, and paying due regard to, the advice of the Commission given under section 25, review any regulations made in respect of Category A to D gaming machines, and which make provision in respect of— 
(a) amounts paid in respect of the use of a machine; 
(b) the value of prizes;
(c) the nature of prizes; 
(d) the premises where a machine is used; 
(e) the aggregate value of prizes of linked machines.'. 
No. 277, in clause 220, page 102, line 18, at end add— 
 '(7) Subsection 220(2)(c) may only be altered by regulations made under subsection (1) and not by an order made under section 163 (12).'. 
No. 341, in clause 220, page 102, line 18, at end add— 
 '(7) Regulations under subsection (1) shall provide that the same categories and sub-categories of Category B and C machines are authorised to be made available for use on— 
(a) premises with a bingo premises licence, and 
(b) premises with a betting premises licence.'. 
No. 344, in clause 220, page 101, line 45, after 'categories', insert— 
'(aa) limit the number of Category A machines that may be made available to not more than 10 per cent. of total gaming machines on any premises subject to a Regional Casino Licence, and'.

Julie Kirkbride: As the Minister will be aware, another great concern about this reform of our gambling laws is that we might turn many sites into what are commonly known as gambling sheds: machines would simply be put in some great barn, whirring, blaring their sirens and making all sorts of other noises—primarily the sound of money chinking down, to encourage more people to put more money into them. That creates an unsavoury, unattractive atmosphere that encourages people to become problem gamblers.
Amendment No. 344 is intended to gauge the Minister's thinking on category A machines, which are the most dangerous, and to find out how far the Government intend to restrict their use. As I am sure the Committee is aware, the introduction of category A machines is the key issue in the Bill. Category B, C and D machines have always been available in the UK, and there is no great concern about them. However, category A machines give pay-outs of £1 million-plus, although exactly what they will be allowed to pay out will be an issue. We are certainly talking about £1 million as a prize, however, and that is what makes these machines so attractive and, therefore, so addictive. 
It would therefore be desirable to restrict the number of category A machines in a regional casino network. That would protect people who wanted to play them, by encouraging them to play the lower pay-out machines, where they could spend less money and probably have as much fun, although winning £1 million is probably pretty exciting. The entire casino should not be full only of category A machines, and people should be encouraged to gravitate to other machines and take up the less dangerous forms of gambling or to restrict their spending on category A machines. That is the most important benefit of seeking to restrict the numbers of such machines. 
There are, however, wider considerations. One impact of the introduction of category A gaming in the UK is that other forms of gambling will suffer—principally, we all assume, the national lottery. Having chosen their numbers, people can win £1 million or more on the lottery twice a week, but category A  machines will allow them to win £1 million or more 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. For some people, that will be very attractive and highly addictive. It will also have the malign effect of cutting the amount spent on the lottery and, therefore, the amount going to good causes, all of which are feeling the pinch as a result of many of the Government's changes to the way in which lottery funds are distributed. 
I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thinking on how far the Government intend to restrict the number of category A machines in regional casinos. Incidentally, the amendment refers only to regional casinos because the smaller casinos will, I assume, not have such machines.

Malcolm Moss: This is an opportunity to debate gaming machines which, alongside the location and numbers of casinos, are a key area of concern. That is evident not just in the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), but throughout the industry. In light of the fact that Government proposals may emerge in the near future, this may not be the right time to have the debate. It is a pity that we do not have the overview that we need to put our arguments into a holistic context.
The Government have already decided to limit the number of regional casinos to eight. They obviously feel that they can justify that on the grounds of protection and social responsibility. We are not unsupportive of that. We have deployed arguments previously in Committee about category A machines not just being restricted to regional casinos. That argument was given greater weight when there was a possibility of between 20 and 40 regional casinos around the country competing with a great advantage against existing casinos. We think that there are currently 131 casinos, but we have had this debate before, so we will say that the figure is between 131 and 135. 
Although that threat of unfair competition has diminished, there is still an argument from existing casino operators in this country which should be aired. They believe that an unfair advantage is being given to the regional casinos. We are going from a position of having no category A machines in the country to having eight regional casinos with up to 1,250 in each, but no one else will be allowed to have them. There is concern about the impact of category A machines, and rightly so. We would certainly support the Government in a pilot scheme as we tabled an amendment in that regard. 
If there is to be a trial, however, it seems logical to look at the whole casino industry over, say, three years or whatever period is decided. We must look at the impact not only of the new regional casinos, but of any other casinos that might develop. The large and the small have been defined and will find a niche. They are new casinos and we do not know how many there will be. The argument that we deployed earlier was that capping the number of regional casinos would create a vacuum at the next level down in the size hierarchy, into which the new investment that had been going into regional casinos might pile. The Minister has  indicated that he accepts the argument about proliferation at that level and may make suggestions on how to control it. 
In terms of a level playing field for businesses, just to say categorically that no category A machines should be allowed in anything other than the new, and as yet untried and untested, regional casinos seems unfair. It is unfair to the existing industry because there has been no problem with that. As far as we are aware there have been no difficulties in the operation of the existing legislation and of many existing casinos. Restrictions are applied under the 1968 Act, including the membership rules, the 24-hour rules, the need to demonstrate demand and the permitted areas. Casinos rightly feel that they have run a clean ship, have a clean bill of health—to mix my metaphors—and are being disadvantaged by the Government's proposals. That is why, in amendments Nos. 271 to 273, we have sought to include category A machines in subsections (4) and (5) in addition to the machines that the Government are proposing in large and small casinos. 
There is uncertainty about the influence and impact of category A machines. There is also misunderstanding about what they really are. The idea that there will be 1,250 maximum stake and payout machines in regional casinos is nonsense. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading, and the Minister confirmed it earlier, that only a small proportion of category A machines will pay out at the high levels. Casino operators whom I have spoken to, and who wish to invest in this country say that they want category A machines because of their flexibility. It is not so much the maximum stake and payout that is critical as the ability to move stakes and payouts along the continuum to attract punters. That means that someone playing a 50p machine could, because of a link, suddenly hit the massive jackpot. They were not playing for it, but it could fall to them. Casino operators want that flexibility. I am making no judgment at this time. No doubt through trials carried out over time and through research, which we support, we will find out whether category A machines are that much of a problem. 
We know from Australia—the Minister has been there, and he probably got a shock—that category A machines in all sorts of locations, including pubs, clubs, bars and even corner shops—almost—can be addictive. Ambient gambling takes place with people betting money as they go to and from work and in their leisure time. Because of the availability and proliferation of machines, there is a serious problem. However, no one is suggesting that category A machines should proliferate. 
Amendment No. 270 would allow only 20 per cent. of gaming machines to be category A. I asked the industry to give me a feel for how many that would mean in small and large casinos. The figures are based on there being 131 casinos, so if there are 134 we will have to add three somewhere along the line. On average, casinos have about 16 gaming tables. About  90 per cent. of casinos are small casinos, as defined by the Bill, and about 10 per cent. are large. In small casinos, there would be a total of 2,096 tables. With two machines per table, that gives a total of 3,773 machines. If 20 per cent. of those machines were category A, there would be six category A machines per small casino. Since large casinos are allowed more machines per table, there would be 1,048 machines in total, and 20 per cent. of that would mean a maximum of 15 category A machines in large casinos. Compared with the 1,250 category A machines that would be allowed in regional casinos, allowing large casinos to have 15 and small casinos to have six is in no shape or form proliferation, nor would it lead to massive problem gambling. It would, however, enable businesses to compete on a level playing field. 
I hope that the Government will take on board our recommendations and amendments in relation to what I earlier termed membership but which I am now convinced is more to do with the idea of identity. I hope that the regulations will be strong, and that the gambling commission will enforce them, so that people who go to casinos to gamble will have to give proof of identity. That is vital in terms of knowing the customer and being able to pick up and deal with problem gambling. If that happens, there is no evidence, certainly from the United States or South Africa, to suggest that there are massive problems with problem gambling on category A machines. We tabled the amendments in an attempt to get a more level playing field for the industry. If there is a proliferation of small and large casinos, my figures will not stand up, but if there is an overall restriction on new casino development—the approach that the Government are wisely and sensibly taking; limiting numbers under a trial scheme and, after a few years, reviewing and testing the scheme's impact before going further—it does not seem unreasonable to perform such trials with category A machines in existing casinos. If we can control the number of casinos, I do not see that we will have a serious problem. We may have to return to the debate about the types of machines when we know more about the Government's overall proposals. 
Many of the amendments relate not to this clause but to clause 220. However, as they relate to gaming machines, it is appropriate to discuss them at this juncture. Amendment No. 341, which has—pretty obviously, given its wording—come from the Bingo Association, raises the issue of fixed-odds betting terminals. The Bingo Association rightly points out that there is a huge discrepancy in industry opinion over who should have those terminals, what their payouts should be and whether there can be a level playing field. 
There is no level playing field at the moment, and certain agreements have been made with the Association of British Bookmakers. It is up to that association to conduct some research and report to the Government. We would be interested to know if any has been done and, if so, its conclusions. There does not seem to be any consistency in stakes and payouts, and before the Bill goes much further we must gain a clearer idea about what is proposed for the future of  FOBTs in the industry. We must be clear whether the number of machines currently available in betting shops should remain so under the agreement between the betting industry and the Department, whether the agreement is open to amendment and why FOBTs are not allowed on bingo premises but are on other premises. 
We will no doubt return to those matters, because, along with the availability of premises for gambling, the type of gaming machine available is critical to the Government's overall objectives. If we do not conclude our discussions today, we should revisit those matters.

Don Foster: Just before the hon. Gentleman completes his remarks, he may wish to turn his attention to amendment No. 274, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. It relates to the re-introduction of a triennial review as part of the regulatory procedures under the Secretary of State's powers.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of a whole host of amendments—Nos. 270 to 274 and 341. As he rightly pointed out, I overlooked any reference to amendment No. 274, which re-introduces the triennial review. The amendment would be helpful and sensible, and we await the Minister's response to it.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up that important point in his discussion of the string of amendments. During his helpful analysis of the figures, he failed to give us the punchline. While he was speaking, I was listening intently, but also doing a bit of arithmetic. I apologise if I have made a mistake, but by my calculation—using the hon. Gentleman's figures and assuming that there are the 134 existing casinos of the Minister's most recent parliamentary answer—were they to take up the full option of category A machines, the grand total throughout the country would be only 824, rather than the 1,250 that could be possible in each of the new regional casinos. That is a small number by comparison.
I share the hon. Gentleman's belief that the Government need to consider even more carefully how to create a level playing field for the existing UK gaming industry and the new industries that will seek to operate the new regional casinos. I have raised that point before, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has done so, too. There are various ways of doing that. One would be, as suggested in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, to have a 10 per cent. cap on regional casinos; another would be a 20 per cent. cap, fairly distributed between the regional casinos and the existing ones. The Minister will recall that I moved an amendment to say that there should be no category A machines. That, too, would create a level playing field. That option still appears as an amendment, although it is rather defunct in the light of our discussions. 
The untried and untested element of category A—unlimited prize money— machines is of considerable concern, not only to members of the Committee but to the public. In a 2002 study, National Economic Research Associates found that there was a direct  correlation between the number of unlimited prize money machines in an Australian territory and the number of problem gamblers. There is clear evidence on those machines, and they are the ones about which most of us have the greatest concern. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. Although he has already indicated that he is not prepared to introduce a cap on the number of category A machines in a regional casino, perhaps he will reflect on that again at a later stage, possibly when new amendments relating to regional casinos are introduced. 
I was particularly pleased that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire proposed the reintroduction of the triennial review. The Committee will be aware that a review was to have taken place in the last quarter of this year. Now it appears that it will be put off, and there is no reference in the legislation to a triennial review occurring under the new regime of the gambling commission. Amendment No. 7 takes the proposal a stage further in that the triennial review, rather than covering just those things listed in amendment No. 274, would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to review every one of the issues covered by her regulation-making powers. It is a slightly wider amendment, but the principle is the same. It is crucially important for the industry that the Minister should acknowledge the need for, and assure us that there will be, a regular review of all such matters in respect of the new bodies that might be introduced and the existing UK industry.

John Pugh: I want to make a few comments, particularly on what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said about a level playing field. I should like to share with the Committee the scrutiny Committee's thoughts on the issue. When we objected to the sole ownership of category A machines by regional casinos, the thinking was that that would give an undue competitive edge to regional casinos over other casinos, and that any large casino would have everything to gain and very little to lose by grossing up and becoming a regional casino. In other words, that would be where the money was to be made, and they would clearly move in that direction.
The worry about proliferation was, I think, behind some of the arguments presented to the scrutiny Committee, but those arguments have been knocked on the head somewhat by the Government putting a limit of eight on the number of casinos. However, there is still an ad hoc character to the Government's justification for giving some casinos a distinct competitive edge over others. Their argument is that we are talking about relatively new, possibly dangerous things and that we need to assess their impact in a confined environment—that is to say, in regional casinos. It is not obvious to me that it follows that we must have a huge number of category A machines in regional casinos. Also, it does not follow that we will extrapolate the right lessons, because the use of category A machines in regional casinos might have a completely different effect to their use in large or small urban casinos.

Richard Caborn: I shall answer two questions that were asked before I give my explanation on the amendments.
First, I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. I recently came back from Australia, and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is right to say that the trip had a profound effect on my thinking on the whole issue of gambling and how various problems can be controlled. We must look to where we have come from under the Gaming Act 1968, and consider how we can translate it into the Bill. 
It struck me forcefully that if we are to control gambling, we must remember that it is about machines—pokies, as they call them in Australia. We have to tie them to provisions on something, such as premises or tables. There has to be a control. What really got out of control in Australia, for all sorts of reasons, was the massive proliferation of machines. The problem is not about casinos; it is just the machines, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove rightly said. She mentioned sheds, and she is absolutely right. That proliferation changed the whole character of sports clubs and so on; it had a profound effect. 
Everything that has been done has come about by tying the machines to some formula—whether a betting shop, a pub or a club with a certain number of machines. As far as casinos are concerned, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: in the regional casinos, we are talking about 25 machines per table. The figure is five for a large casino and two for a small casino. That is one area where we can control things. As I say, in Australia the machines are not in controlled locations. They can be in all sorts of places, because there is no licence in that sense. 
On the so-called unlevel playing field that has been created by fixed-odds betting terminals, and the relationship to bingo halls, there are some 700 bingo premises in which alcohol is served that allow children in them. Betting shops are adult-only and do not have a licence to sell alcohol. 
On the triennial review, the latest review did take place, and the Gaming Board recommended to the Government that there be increases in stakes and prizes. Ministers rejected those recommendations. 
On the amendments, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and expresses concerns in her amendment. Many people do not like the proposals for casinos with 1,250 gaming machines, but that is not the real problem. In Las Vegas, there are no limits on the number of category A machines, but fewer than 10 per cent. of them have prizes above £2,000. That is a result  of straightforward economics. In order to offer high prizes, one needs a high stake, or to make a stake on something many times, before—as the hon. Lady described it—one hears the chink of the prize money. Casino operators normally have relatively few very high-prize machines. Otherwise, their products would be unattractive to the vast majority of people. 
That is borne out in this country. In the 134 casinos operating today, there are 976 gaming machines, all of which are capable, as a matter of law, of offering a maximum prize of £2,000. However, of those machines—we are asking for category As to be included—the casinos have decided to offer only 289 with a maximum prize of £2,000. Market forces apply and customers are demanding smaller and more frequent payouts. That seems to be what people want, and the industry has responded. I sympathise with the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady, but her amendment addresses a problem that experience around the world and in this country suggests is not real. 
Our policy on category A machines is clear: they will be allowed only in regional casinos. I have listened to the concerns expressed that the domestic casino industry will be prejudiced by our policy on category A machines, but I do not believe that there is any evidence of that. We have a strong home-grown casino industry that will be able to benefit from many of the measures in this Bill, which will release it from much of what it considers to be undue regulation.

Malcolm Moss: I am listening to the Minister's argument extremely carefully. He seems to be suggesting that, because of market forces, many of the payouts in existing casino businesses that have machines that can pay out a maximum of £2,000 are much lower. Category A machines are flexible. If six machines went into a small casino, there is no way that any of those machines could pay out large amounts of money. Six machines does not provide the financial base for big payouts. There is no problem in terms of huge payouts from six category A machines. The argument is that they are flexible. They can be adjusted to pay out whatever is wanted and the stake can be put at any level. Market forces would come to bear among players in small casinos, and I do not see a problem with that. I thought that the Minister was agreeing.

Richard Caborn: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the facts. Market forces have determined payouts in Las Vegas and in this country. We are not coming off the back of that decision. We made our decision on category A machines very clear: they ought to go into regional casinos. We believe that that is prudent at this stage. When the whole thing comes up for review, category A machines will also be reviewed. We are responding to the genuine concerns that manifested themselves on Second Reading about proliferation of regional casinos. We have addressed the concerns, and that is why category A machines will be in regional casinos. All I am saying is that there is no evidence for the Domesday scenario that our indigenous casinos will be wiped out if they do not have category A machines. Even with machines with £2,000 payouts—  as I say, only a small percentage make such payouts—I do not believe the Domesday scenario that has been painted this afternoon and previously.

Malcolm Moss: I do not know about the Domesday scenario. I did not speak about casinos being wiped out.

Richard Caborn: Others have.

Malcolm Moss: I certainly have not. Existing casinos will no doubt continue to exist. Many are private clubs and will not want ambient gamblers off the streets. They will probably keep their membership, and the Minister has confirmed that they will be entitled to do so. However, in the top clubs in London, people play blackjack and roulette for huge stakes. What is the logic of telling them that they can put only a few pounds into a machine that pays out a maximum of £2,000? The Minister admitted that they do not all pay out the maximum. The setting of payouts is flexible and that would follow naturally with category A machines. For the Government to say that they are being prudent by not allowing those machines to go into other casinos makes no logical sense to me and does not make a lot of sense to many other people. We understand that the Government want to be prudent, but until recently they were going to allow 50,000 of those machines in up to 40 regional casinos. It was all right then, so why is it not all right now?

Richard Caborn: One could rehearse these arguments ad nauseam. The number of 40 casinos was on the extreme side—we were talking much more of 20 to 25. However, we have taken the decision on the back of experience, including mine of Australia. The one thing that the Australians said to me time and again was, ''Do not go too far: it is far more difficult to pull back than to release incrementally as you go.'' Therefore, it is a judgment on what is proportionate, and we believe that what we are proposing is right. It will be tested by the way that we are rolling out the regional casinos and our formula of tying the number of machines to establishments, tables or whatever.
On amendments Nos. 270, 273 and 277, I think that it is a mistake to carve out yet a smaller number of category A machines in the way proposed. All the evidence shows us that the operators themselves limit the number of machines offering the very big stakes.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister just said that.

Richard Caborn: I know that—I was responding to amendments Nos. 270, 273 and 277. As Members know, what we say is scrutinised not just by the Committee, but in courts of law and by all the lobbyists and QCs, so we like to get everything on record. It may sometimes be boring for Members, but we nevertheless think that it is important for the proper interpretation of legislation. QCs on the Front Bench from certain parties have said that we have not been clear enough; we are now being precise, so I hope that the Committee will bear with me. 
As I have said already, but repeat again, we have imposed a ratio of machines to real gaming tables on casinos so that they cannot become machine sheds, which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove was concerned about. We have put an overall cap on the number of machines allowed and given ourselves the power to review the ratio, the cap and the category of machines allowed in casinos should the need arise. 
The purpose of amendments Nos. 274 and 227 is to make a triennial review of stake and prize limits a statutory requirement. I understand the desire to ensure that the gambling industry can use machines that keep pace with economic development as well as being mindful of the need to prevent problem gambling. However, we do not believe that the triennial review needs to be enshrined in legislation. The review of stakes and prizes under the 1968 legislation has operated effectively and for many years as a matter of custom and practice. I expect that to continue. 
Amendment No. 6 would eliminate category A machines from the Bill. Under the Bill, such machines are subject to the tightest control.

Don Foster: When the Minister says that he expects the current arrangements for the triennial review to continue, would he welcome it if they did so?

Richard Caborn: I suppose that I would welcome that, and I have no doubt that the gambling commission will ensure that that happens.
The argument that has been put this afternoon is that not permitting category A machines denies the customers choice. If category A machines could not be offered as part of the British casino experience, consumers would be forced, as they are now, on to internet casino sites offering precisely the same product, but in an environment that lacks the tight controls that we envisage under the Bill. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments for the reasons that I have explained. 
I want briefly to turn to fixed-odds betting terminals—FOBTs. I understand the bingo industry's concerns that it too should be allowed to have what we call category B2 machines, which are currently known as FOBTs. As I have said before, one good reason for not allowing that is that FOBTs are offered in betting shops rather than licensed premises. There is also a concern related to children. We have been clear all along that we propose to bring FOBTs under regulation in the Bill, and part 10 now ensures that fixed-odds betting machines are a form of gaming machine. 
I have heard a lot of concern in the past few weeks about the proliferation of gaming machines and worries about problem gambling. Having just described the various steps that we are taking to ensure that FOBTs in betting shops are safe and kept under review, I am afraid that I cannot do what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire wants and, at a stroke of the pen, give bingo halls the same machines. 
I have one other point. I have not seen the work done by the Association of British Bookmakers. I understand that it is complete; I have not seen it, but I  have no doubt that we shall share it with hon. Members in the Committee and the House at some stage.

Malcolm Moss: The scrutiny Committee recommended that FOBTs should be placed in a separate category because of the difference in stake limits between them and jackpot machines. The Government's response said that
''such distinctions would be unhelpful, and could reproduce the problems the Committee has considered in relation to FOBTs, where the technical nature of the definition of a gaming machine in the present law has not kept pace with changes in technology . . . As a result, having brought FOBTs within the core definition of gaming machine in the Bill, the Government proposes that machines which are currently being operated as FOBTs will become category B gaming machines.'' 
The Minister has confirmed that, but there are so many variations of those category B machines that something must be done to distinguish them, and to ensure that there is a level playing field and availability across the board.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is right. As he knows, that is why we had to come to an agreement with the industry. The Gaming Board at the time said that there could be difficulties in court so we came to a voluntary agreement, which is in accord with the views held today. We said that we would legislate and change the definition.
I shall put the categories on the record. FOBTs are category B2 machines; small and large casinos have B1 machines; bingos have B3 machines; and clubs have B4 machines. There is a description of category B machines in clause 220. They are sub-categorised, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am sure that we will return to the matter at a later stage; perhaps when we have a clearer picture of the Government's overall plans for casinos.
I listened carefully to the Minister, but I still believe that there is inconsistency and illogicality in some of his points. He turned down the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, saying that if there were no category A machines at all, the great British public would be denied access to them. He more or less indicated that that was a bad move, and that they should be allowed access. Access has now been limited to eight regional casinos, but why should people have to go huge distances if it is so important to make these machines available to play? People will have to go to regional casinos to play them; why cannot they go to their local casino, be it large or small? 
The idea that that there will be huge payouts if there are six category A machines in a small casino is total nonsense. They cannot pay out more than they take in, and if the stakes are set too high, no one will play on the machines. All we are asking for is a little flexibility  and a level playing field. There is inconsistency here, as I have said more than once. The Government have not, as yet, got a clear idea of what they want to propose. 
We accept the point about protection, and the point about the trial, monitoring and research. However, to say that it is less of a problem to have 1,250 category A machines in a regional casino than it is to have 15 in a large existing casino, which has had no problems whatever during the past 25 years, does not make any sense. It is not logical. 
Bearing in mind all the criticism that has come their way of late, the Government want to ensure that they present to the public a hard face on the matter. It has been said that they are having a free-for-all and that market forces are rampant in the gaming industry. We sympathise with their wish to present the view that there are constraints, and that they know what they are doing and are not unleashing all sorts of forces over which they have no control. We support all that, but even in that context there is surely still some flexibility to consider the overall picture. 
Whether there are controls over the eight regional casinos or whether we or the Government suggest something for the other casinos, there is a possibility of having category A machines, which are only flexible machines—that is all. They are the latest technology. I can see no reason why one cannot argue for constraints, restrictions and controls, and at the same time allow existing businesses to have at their disposal that which will be made available to the new and mostly incoming capital. 
There will be a mighty scramble for the eight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, one will be allocated for Scotland and one for Wales. Quite why we have to decide that I do not know, but if people there want them, fine. That leaves only six to go round the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, but at least 20 sites, if not more, are already allocated in the minds of local authorities and investors. There will be an almighty punch-up over who gets what, where and when. I just hope that the Government have thought the situation through and ensured that they have covered every angle legally. 
We support the constraint because a cautious and judicious approach is needed. However, I still cannot accept the logic of making 1,250 category A machines freely available to the 20,000-plus people who will go to a regional casino every weekend, which, it is said, is what is needed to cross the threshold to make any money. I do not see why that is less harmful than having six category A machines in a small private club in London which will retain its membership. I do not see the logic in that at all, but we shall return to the issue later.

Julie Kirkbride: I broadly but not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As far the Government's standpoint is concerned, however, he certainly made a relevant point. The only thing that I would say is that I should still like there to be fewer than eight such casinos in the Bill. The more we can restrict those casinos, the more reason there will be to prohibit category A machines from other premises, because they will proliferate if  they are allowed to do so. Therefore, I would not go all the way with my hon. Friend on that, but we will wait and see what amendments are tabled later.
I intend to withdraw the amendment. However, although I heard what the Minister said about the experience of other countries and the numbers of category A machines as a mix of all machines on a premises, I have to ask, if he believes that market forces will deliver that result anyway, what is the harm in putting something to that effect in the Bill? Doing so would reassure many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. However, as we shall return to the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 163 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 164 - Virtual gaming

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 336, in clause 164, page 74, line 20, at end add—
 '(3) A bingo premises licence shall by virtue of this section authorise the holder to make facilities available for playing games of bingo played on more than one set of premises where the persons playing the games are participating by the use of remote communication.'. 
The amendment relates to a bingo premises licence and would allow such a licence to cover more than one set of premises, where the persons playing are participating by the use of remote communication. The amendment allows me to return to our earlier discussion about linked and multiple bingo, which I think we had on the afternoon of 9 November, on clause 4. As a result of what the Minister said then, the Bingo Association has expressed great surprise. 
There are two points to make. First, the association says that in all its contacts with the Minister and his officials about gambling reform there has never been any indication that a remote gambling licence would be required for either type of game. It came as quite a shock to find that that type of licence would be necessary, especially for linked games. Secondly, the proposed imposition of additional licensing could well curtail the playing of linked games by small clubs, because the cost of the additional licence may be too great to justify the small-scale links in which such clubs take part. 
The amendment relates to linked and multiple bingo because it uses remote communication. That relates to the premises licence, but it has also enabled me at least to flag up the fact that the Bingo Association is not best pleased to be told at this late hour in Committee, despite all the conversations that it has been having with officials at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, that it will have to pay for extra licences on remote gambling. This may well be an opportunity for the Minister to take that point on board and to say something about it, if he can. If not, he needs to take up the matter with the Bingo Association, because it was given no indication that that would be a problem.

Richard Caborn: I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman has made. This matter caused concern at a previous sitting, to which he referred. The Bingo Association has brought the matter to our attention, and my officials recently met Sir Peter Fry and his colleagues to explain how the provisions will operate. Very many bingo halls around the country, some of which are independent chains with only a few clubs, offer linked bingo. Most clubs participate in the national game, which is described as multiple bingo.
Under the Bill, operators who use remote equipment to provide bingo will require a remote bingo-operating licence. That includes telephone links and computer messaging systems. This means that providers of the national game will require a remote licence. There are currently two such providers, who will continue to need a specific licence, as they do now. Our policy is that individual bingo halls on whose premises the national game is conducted will not need a remote licence for the national game to proceed on their premises. We believe that the Bill delivers that through a combination of clauses 4 and 5. 
It will also be open to the gambling commission and the licensing authority to add express licence conditions to ensure that bingo halls can continue to offer the national game. I hope that that provides some reassurance that there is no over-regulation of multiple bingo. So far as linked bingo is concerned, it is true that the Bill will require all bingo premises using remote equipment to produce the linked game to obtain a remote bingo-operating licence. That may appear to be an onerous burden for the simple activity of announcing bingo numbers down a phone line, but it is an important principle of the Bill that all remote activities require a specific licence. That is simply because remote gambling carries a particular risk that needs to be catered for specifically. 
As honest and fair as our bingo operators are in Great Britain, and I agree that they are, remote bingo still carries the risks of phone links operating with delays, or of unscrupulous operators fixing things so that their halls have advantages over others. We want consumers to have the confidence that linked bingo, which after all takes place on premises other than the one in which they are sitting, operates fairly. To date, the Gaming Board has achieved that under the current general bingo permissions in the 1968 Act. 
In our view, the appropriate means of regulation is now a remote bingo-operating licence. Indeed, to the extent to which they wish to operate, operators will be able to use such licences to grow their remote activities, as technology and the appetite for different bingo games grows. 
None of that means that we wish to place disproportionate costs on small bingo chains, so under part 5, the gambling commission and the Government can take account of different circumstances when prescribing fees and application procedures. I am therefore happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that fees for linked bingo are set at an appropriate level that seeks to recover only the modest  regulatory costs involved. We will also look to the commission to provide as simple an application procedure as possible for this activity. 
Given that explanation and those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for the fact that the Minister and his officials have met representatives of the Bingo Association. He did not, however, tell us whether they were satisfied that some of their worst fears had been alleviated. A simple yes or no would suffice.

Richard Caborn: We think so.

Malcolm Moss: Good. In that case, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. If there is still unease about the issue, perhaps we will revisit it at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 164 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 165 - Casino premises licence

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 237, in clause 165, page 74, line 37, at end insert
 '(6) Regulations under section 158 or 159 may, in particular, make provision in relation to casino premises licences, or in relation to a class of casino premises licence, for a condition requiring the provision of recreational or other facilities of a specified kind. 
 (7) Subsection (6) is without prejudice to the generality of sections 158, 159 and 160.'. 
The amendment will insert two new subsections into clause 165. The purpose is to make it clear that the Secretary of State can use regulation-making powers to ensure that conditions are attached to the casino premises licences with respect to non-gambling facilities provided at the casino. The non-gambling areas of the casino, particularly of the regional casinos, will perform an important role in encouraging people not to overuse a casino's gambling facilities. That is particularly so when those facilities are of a high quality and offer attractive alternatives. We want to make sure that that process works, and we have given the Secretary of State an express power to require conditions to be attached to casinos' premises licences to enable us to do that. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 165, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 166 - Door supervision

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 337, in clause 166, page 75, line 13, at end add
 '(5) This section shall not apply in relation to a bingo club premises licence.'. 
The amendment replicates the exemption granted to licensed bingo clubs and other types of premises from a requirement for door supervisors to be registered with the Security Industry Authority. That requirement comes into the clause at subsection (3)(a). 
The requirement to register door supervisors was introduced into Westminster in the London Local Authorities Act 1995 and applied across the country in the Private Security Industry Act 2001. From the outset, it was agreed with the support of the Government, that certain forms of premises, including those licensed under part 2 of the Gaming Act, should be exempt from the requirement. The legislation was primarily intended to cover those working as bouncers in London clubs and not those employed to check membership details in local bingo clubs. Also exempted were cinemas, theatres and ten-pin bowling centres. 
One wonders why, given the average age of the people attending bingo halls, one needs top security people and bouncers to regulate them going in and out. I think—no, I know—that that is regulation overkill. I have a heck of a brief to read out, but I will not do so because the issue is so obviously something on which the Government should back down that I will just sit down.

Richard Caborn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but I hope that I can reassure him that what we are proposing is neither unreasonable nor unfair to the bingo industry. It is true that, at the moment, bingo clubs who use their own staff as door supervisors do not have to obtain a licence from the Security Industry Authority. The reason for that exemption is that bingo halls must operate as clubs and, therefore, as we understand it, they usually engage door supervisors to control access. The Gaming Board has undertaken the task of overseeing such staff.
Under the Bill, bingo halls will no longer have to operate as clubs. In many cases, therefore, the bingo premises will not need a door supervisor in the same way that they do now. There will be people who sell tickets for admission, but they will not count as door supervisors. Under the Bill, a licensing authority can decide whether it is necessary to impose a condition on bingo, or any other, premises to have door supervisors. 
Clause 166 does not have any effect unless there is a mandatory door supervision condition. I can imagine many cases in which an authority will not think it necessary to impose such a condition on bingo premises but we will leave it to the operator to make its own arrangements. If an authority does think it necessary to require a bingo hall, or another gambling premise, to use door supervisors, we cannot see any reason why such people should not meet the legal requirement that the Private Security Industry Act  imposes. I do not think that that is an unfair burden on bingo halls, given the regulatory regime under which they now operate. With that assurance, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am disappointed with that response. I thought that common sense might prevail. There are never any problems with bingo halls, as far as I am aware. It is not high on the agenda of the local constabulary to have people turning up to subdue riots at bingo halls. Bingo halls attract elderly people, and they are not licensed under the Security Industry Authority. Another burden is being placed on the operators of bingo halls by making them employ mark 1 door supervisors.
The Minister said it was down to the local authority to make a decision, but I have looked in clause 166 and I cannot find that provision. It may not be in that clause, but it would be helpful if the Minister were to explain to me who is responsible for deciding whether a premises licence for a bingo hall would require mark 1 supervision, as detailed in this clause. Certainly, the Bingo Association feels that there are no problems and that there have not been any problems, and it does not want another layer of regulation and cost imposed on it.

Richard Caborn: Clause 166 contains the words:
 ''Where a condition for door supervision''. 
The local authority will determine that condition. If there were no problems, premises would not need door supervision. The decision is with local authorities, it is covered in this clause, and where it is not needed, premises would not need the exclusions.

Malcolm Moss: I am happy with that explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 166 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 167 to 175 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 176 - Copy of licence

Amendment made: No. 161, in clause 176, page 80, line 36, at end add— 
 '( ) In subsection (2), ''prescribed'' means— 
(b) in relation to applications to authorities in Scotland, prescribed by regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.'.—[Mr. Caborn] 
Clause 176, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 177 to 182 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 183 - Application for review

Amendment made: No. 162, in clause 183, page 84, line 6, at end add— 
 '( ) In relation to applications to authorities in Scotland, subsections (3) and (4) shall have effect as if the references to the Secretary of State were references to the Scottish Ministers.'. —[Mr. Caborn] 
Clause 183, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 184 and 185 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 186 - Initiation of review by licensing authority

Amendment made: No. 163, in clause 186, page 85, line 19, at end add— 
 '( ) In relation to notice given by a licensing authority in Scotland, subsection (4) shall have effect as if the reference to the Secretary of State were a reference to the Scottish Ministers.'. —[Mr. Caborn] 
Clause 186, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 187 to 193 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 194 - Stay pending appeal

Amendment proposed: No. 340, in clause 194, page 89, line 6, at end insert— 
', including an order that subsection (1) shall apply.'. —[Mr. Moss]

Richard Caborn: It is unnecessary for me to thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining his amendment—as it says in my briefing—because he has not done so. However, it is not necessary to make these changes to the Bill.
Any decision taken by the gambling commission or a licensing authority to override the stay pending appeal provisions will be open to challenge through the courts by way of judicial review. Clear justification for overriding that provision will be required, thereby in effect restricting both the gambling commission and the licensing authorities to using that power reasonably. Owing to the significant effect such a decision might have on a licensee, we consider it only reasonable to use the power in exceptional circumstances. We do not, therefore, consider the amendment necessary. 
Furthermore, the gambling appeals tribunal and the magistrates courts or sheriffs have the power to overrule any decision removing the stay pending provisions if they believe such a decision is not appropriate. The power for the tribunal is dealt with in paragraph 13 of schedule 7. The ability for magistrates courts and sheriffs to do likewise is contained in clause 194 (2), which enables any order to be made that is deemed appropriate. 
I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he requires and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 194 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 195 and 196 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 197 - Stay pending appeal

Amendment made: No. 164, in clause 197, page 90, line 29, at end add— '( ) This section does not apply to Scotland.'. —[Mr. Caborn.] 
Clause 197, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 198 - Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 165, in clause 198, page 90, line 45, leave out 'and 170' and insert ', 170 and 176'.—[Mr. Caborn.] 
Clause 198, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 199 to 218 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.]

Roger Gale: Order. Before I adjourn the Committee, I remind Committee Members that it will sit at 9.30 am on Tuesday. Will they please ensure that they check their cards? Owing to the Welsh Grand Committee and state visits, we may have to move to another Room. If that is so, Committee Members will be notified. But we will negotiate to see whether we can retain this Room.
I wish all Committee members a good weekend. 
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock until Tuesday 7 December at half-past Nine o'clock.